Absolutely,alcohol/water injection on a gasoline powered supercharged/turbo charged engine allows you to run more boost.
Absolutely,alcohol/water injection on a gasoline powered supercharged/turbo charged engine allows you to run more boost.
Well, between a 2000 Camry, a 2005 Scion XA, and a 2006 Nissan Frontier V6 - they all go to crap when any ethanol makes it in the tank. My wife's car (the XA) vibrates like crazy, the MPG goes down, and it takes about 2 tanks of regular to get it to act right. My car (the Camry) gets worse MPG and turns sluggish. The Frontier... it must get gummed up because it takes a while to start after ethanol and even then it takes 2-3 tanks for it to go back to starting right up on the first click. Ethanol is another "green" move that fails and they're going to keep forcing it down our throats. Just wait until any non-ethanol fuel is banned and we are forced to get newer vehicles that can run on the ethanol-blends (thus eliminating the "clunkers").
If the Gubbedment didn't subsidize solar, wind, and ethanol, none of it would exist.
Residual alcohol can/will also mix with your oil and can start to hamper its lubrication properties. This is why many alcohol racers run zero end-gap rings and it also another reason why most people shut alcohol racing engines off by running them out of fuel, not with the ignition.
My 1995 Dodge Ram runs like crap on the up to 10% ethanol, so I try and avoid any ethanol gas stations when filling up my truck. I highly doubt that 20% will help the matter.
Besides all of the negative side effects already listed, ethanol is costing you more at the grocery store too. We've gotten used to the price increases but when the government started subsidizing ethanol production, food costs spiked across the board and have not returned to their previous levels. Besides the obvious use of corn to feed beef cows, dairy cows, poultry and pork, many wheat, soy farmers, etc. also switched to producing corn thereby reducing supply of those items. As a result, every food commodity has increased in price.
Using food for fuel is a bad idea in my opinion. If anything, the use of natural gas makes more sense to me. It is both cheaper and cleaner. It isn't quite as efficient as gasoline but any efficiency losses are offset by the lower cost. The major hurdle is the cost of conversion kits and the accessibility of pumps. If there are to be subsidies, they should go there. It can't be the only solution but it could be part of the solution.
Obama apparently is a major investor in electric vehicles or works for people who are. He is obsessed with them despite their many drawbacks. He also fails to addresses the environmental impact of battery production and disposal.
Using food for fuel is a bad idea in my opinion. If anything, the use of natural gas makes more sense to me. It is both cheaper and cleaner. It isn't quite as efficient as gasoline but any efficiency losses are offset by the lower cost. The major hurdle is the cost of conversion kits and the accessibility of pumps. If there are to be subsidies, they should go there. It can't be the only solution but it could be part of the solution.
Obama apparently is a major investor in electric vehicles or works for people who are. He is obsessed with them despite their many drawbacks. He also fails to addresses the environmental impact of battery production and disposal.
Similar threads
